**CALLING AL GORE**

Please step in, Al.

The Clinton campaign trivializes the crime committed against Al Gore in 2000 by saying Fl and MI's Primary
(self-inflicted) problems are the same thing. Andrew Sullivan says: "When will Gore step in? Someone has to."

The Clintons Ramp It Up

Andrew Sullivan 21 May 2008

So it's not about the voters, it's about her.

It's always about her.

Operation 2012 is in full swing.

hillary doesn't give a flying fuck about voters, fairness, her party or her country. Hillary cares about hillary, nothing else.

No one has a "right" to vote in a primary. No one has a "right" to even have a primary as a way to choose a nominee. In states with closed primaries, are independent voters "disenfranchised" when they aren't allowed to cast primary ballots? Are voters denied "one person one vote" in Texas, where winning certain districts results in more delegates than others, such that some votes are actually worth more than others? The Libertarians, the Greens and every other third party chooses a nominee without any primaries at all. Have they all been "disenfranchised"? The party can choose any method it wants to pick the nominee. Your candidate didn't have a problem with the arrangement until she lost. And she has lost. The franchise is a serious thing. It should be protected, not trivialized.

be interesting to see what happens on Friday.

Its like they give her room and then start piling on.

from which Hillary will benefit greatly and Obama very little. It will ensure Hillary has the funds to continue her horseshit all the way to convention, where she can really fuck over the party and our nation.

I don't expect Gore to stand up to Hillary. It seems that his priorities are already set, as are the DNC's.

This is money for the DNC's general election fund.

coat-tails. Her supporters can't even fund her campaign. I doubt they will have much left over for the DNC. In addition, campaign expeses for the event will most certainly be reimbursed. Hillary has a reputation for "nearly fraudulent" use of campaign funds, so she will grossly overbill and end up with a net gain.

the rules of a Presidential election, or a primary leading thereto. Just as the Supreme Court intervention into the 2000 election controversy was a political intervention, not a legally-justifiable one, (read Justice Stevens' dissent on that), it is, when a candidate anoints him or herself to interpret the rules, that's a political intervention, not a Constitutional remedy. It's obvious to all who are not interested in the Constitution, however, that no one can justify this obvious conflict of interest in Hillary Clinton interpreting the law as to whether Florida votes should be counted of rejected.

Her speech in Florida was outrageous. Her comparison between this situation and the Florida 2000 recount debacle was laughable on its face. Egregiously missing in her statement "count every vote," referencing the Florida Supreme Court opinion in that situation, was beyond appalling.

Counting every legitimate vote was the issue, not every vote. Counting literally every vote can be construed as condoning ballot box stuffing ...

The Constitution of the United States delegates the authority to conduct elections to the individual states. The State Legislatures outline the rules of those elections in order to elect a Slate of Electors to be counted as representative of the vote of that state. These laws enacted by the State Legislatures are embedded in each State constitution, and can only be changed by amendment by that Legislature, not declaration of a candidate running for President. It's mind-boggling that Hillary would interject herself in this process for the benefit of overtaking an opponent in the primary process.

Someone from the Obama camp needs to address the legality of these issues in a way that's acceptable to the voting public. Hillary's remarks needed to be rejected unequivocally as inappropriate and self-serving. Just as the Senate has the authority to reject a Slate of Electors from a particular state when Constitution violations occur, the Democratic National Committee, under the auspices of which these state primaries were run and to which the state politicians are willing members, has the authority to reject those votes which were illegally registered. By violating the rules, the state politicians of Florida rendered the votes registered during the primary as illegitimate. Punishing Hillary's opponent in this election for that irregularity is no more fair than the Supreme Court negating the votes of 51 million people through the United States in 2000 in order to avoid giving a "disproportionate amount of weight" to those votes counted in a recount over the votes of those whose votes were counted in the first round. Yes, that's a convoluted argument, but I didn't make it, Rehnquist, Scalia, et al,, did, and I am just revisiting it.

In making the speech this morning in Florida that Hillary made, she in essence appointed herself to act as the ruling body on this issue, interpreting the law as she saw fit, much in the same role as the Supreme Court allowed itself to play in 2000. Unbelievable.

I could not help but wonder if Al Gore was doing a slow burn as he heard Hillary the candidate this morning interpreting the election laws to suit her own candidacy. But as someone whose vote for Al Gore was negated by the Supreme Court in 2000 because of election irregularities in the State of Florida, I KNEW I WAS AFIRE WITH FURY listening to Hillary compare the two situations.

I POSTED THIS EARLIER IN ANOTHER THREAD, BUT WANTED TO REPEAT MY POINTS HERE SINCE I TOO REFERENCED AL GORE. I hope you do not mind.

Sam

Thanks for posting!

agh - it works with low information voters!

If FL & MI to move their GE voting to December would that make Ok? would that be a legitimate way to decide an election? No because we have laws. The Democratic Party has rules and dates set in advance , years infact. Yet the legislatures of both states held their election in violation of party rules. So in the GE scenerio the election would be considered invalid.
The Democratic Party bent over backwards to find an equitable solution.
It is the voters who will decide on whether their interests were served not the outsiders. That is what happened in 2000. Outsiders interfered in our process and the results are evident.

Clinton's Civil rights argument is a sham and the self interest is too blatant. Had she made her claims prior to the the rules committee meeting in this past December, she would be credible. One of her key people was on that committee; he did not make noise or block that issue. roughly 33million votes have been cast by states who did follow the rules. Should those people be slapped in the face by Clinton efforts? They did follow the rules.

:eyes:

Rhandi Rhodes was right...........

What a disgusting megalomaniac LOSER

She's had her shot, in fact, she's had more than her fair share, IMO.

There's no reason anymore for the big whigs to keep sitting on the sidelines.

Dean, Reid and Pelosi need to meet with her, and Al and Jimmy need to come out and endorse Obama, along with Biden and any other undeclared big whigs out there.

It would also do for a lot of strong women SDs to switch to Obama, ala Boxer and Feinstein.

I didn't mind her fighting on, but claiming that she's going to take her clearly losing bid to the convention is just bad. Bad for the Party. Bad for America. If there's two things I'm ashamed of Ted Kennedy for doing, one was running in 1980 and taking it to the convention.

David

He doesn't have to go *against* HRC; he just has to stand FOR
Obama.